306
Trump’s Weird, Low-Energy Speech Ends With an Even Stranger Twist
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
306 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3721 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I won't necessarily say it's that.
There are two main crowds when it comes to Trump coverage:
Literally no way to make both of those groups happy, lol.
When it's just him spouting off lies, conspiracies, and hate, I say give him as little coverage as possible. The people voting for him don't care or want that, and the "undecideds" at this point are either just attention-seekers or too ignorant for any additional coverage to get through their thick skulls.
The only people who don't know what Trump's about by now would have to have been cryogenically frozen or in a coma since 2014, and I don't think that's a large enough voting demographic to really worry about.
Option 1 is like having a statue of Hitler in a town square and treating it like any other honorary statue.
Option 2 is hiding Hitler completely and never mentioning his existence, even though he is currently doing terrible things.
There is a third option, write an article about how incoherent he is while using what he said as examples and not just giving him a platform with 'he said...' and no context. Like how museums handle horrible subjects by giving them context. People tend to worry that pointing out his incoherence would be editoralizing or some excuse to fall back to 1 or 2, but it isn't. He is clearly spouting incoherent word salad beyond prior years and that is newsworty.
That's...not wrong. And I see where you're coming from.
But they'd end up spending 24/7 coverage just debunking that shit because it's coming out like a fire hose every time he's on camera or taking a shit (because what he craps out on social media also gets news coverage).
I can't tell you how much I'm looking forward to the day the news isn't dominated by this orange turd (except maybe coverage of his sentencing or something) Mid 2021 was kind of a preview of that, but once our 3 year election cycle kicked back in, there he was again all day, every day.
Maybe they could do a weekly Trump bullshit fact check wrap up instead or something?
Regardless, I agree with them not airing the live feed/coverage, but I can agree with you that the overall behavior should be highlighted in some way.
They don't need to debunk everything he says though, just hit the major points and extrapolate from there.
I mean, they crucified Biden for a single debate performance that was likely the result of jet lag and illness, why can't they do that to someone who deserves it by having similar performances every single day?
Agreed that the coverage doesn't need to be daily.